She not only moved to Jerusalem, she became a Nazarite Jew and built the largest palace and tomb in Jerusalem. Her son, Izas-Jesus was also sent to Jerusalem, for his 7-year Nazarite training.

Jesus was certainly in Jerusalem when King Abgarus of Edessa was writing letters to him in the late AD 40s (see the Doctrine of Addai for this letter-writing episode). You will note in Eusebius' version of this story, that Eusebius has changed the Roman emperor to match the AD 30s date for Jesus. But if you look at the governors of Judaea and Syria that are mentioned, you will see that the date was actually the AD 40s and 50s.

In my case, Tom Verenna has reviewed an entire book without even reading it. Thus his review is riddled with very stupid and quite embarrassing errors. But when he was presented with those errors, Verenna simply deletes them and lives behind a wall of censorship. Of course you can be 'right' every time, if you censor all your mistakes and errors and refuse to debate the real facts.

As I said, Verenna is a complete and utter fraud, who tried to claim he was fighting in Iraq. And it would appear that dozens of people have fallen foul of his biased and fraudulent reviews.

The following is my repost to his absurd review of my book (written before he deleted all my replies, and hid behind his infantile wall of censorship).

Ralph

Mr Thomas Verenna
Musings of Verenna

Sir,

I am surprised you would be quite so forceful in your rejection of my book, without first reading the evidence I have provided.

Firstly, the conflation of King Monobazus and King Abgarus.

You did not read the book, did you?
I conflate King Abgarus of Edessa and King Monobazus (the elder) of Adiabene, because the Syriac historians like Moses of Chorene and John the Historian say that Queen Helena of Adiabene was the chief wife of King Abgarus of Edessa. For many reasons this is not simply two marriages - this is a conflation of royalty and kingdoms. If Helena was the wife of both Monobazus and Abgarus, then these two kings must be the same person.

And thus Adiabene and Edessa are the same location too. In reality, Adiabene was a Josephusan pseudonym for Edessa. So at last we know where Adiabene was, and this location makes much more sense of the confused Roman reports.

This also explains what 'Monobazus' really means (another Josephusan construct). Monobazus was derived from Mono Bassilus meaning Only King or Forsaken King. But this is merely Josephus' joke. The original name was Manu Bazus, meaning King Manu (of Edessa). So the Adiabene and Edessan royalty really were one and the same.

Secondly, Queen Helena as a Queen of the Jews.

You did not read the book, did you?
As you know, Queen Helena had the largest tomb and the largest palace in Jerusalem, so she was rather important. She also provided the golden menorah for the Temple of Jerusalem, so she was well connected with the priesthood. Also, Jesus of Gamala (a pseudonym for Izas of Adiabene, because they both led the Jewish Revolt), became high priest of Jerusalem in the AD 60s. And this priestly position was bought for Jesus by some 75 kilos of silver, provided by Mary-Martha Boethus (who Prof Eisenman equates with the biblical Mary and Martha of Bethany).

And then, if you read the Toledoth Yeshu, you will see that the biblical Jesus was not brought before Pilate, he was brought before Queen Helena - which elevates Queen Helena into a primary Judaic authority. In effect, she was the Queen of the Jews in the same manner as Jesus was the King of the Jews. And this elevation is doubly likely in this new scenario, and Queen Helena would have been Jesus' mother.

Thirdly the coin on the jacket cover.

You did not read the book, did you?
The explanation for the jacket cover, is on the inside cover. In reality (not something you would be familiar with) I know exactly which Abgar the jacket cover coin is of, as this is my coin. The problem I was faced with, is that the real coin of King Manu VI is very rough, and does not display the Edessan plaited Crown of Thorns very well. So I chose to display a later coin, as the image is much clearer. But the profile of the king, and the crown with thorns is exactly the same on all of the Edessan coins, so this is of little consequence. And I explain all of this on the inside cover - which you would have seen if you had actually read the book.

So you give us pages of 'evidence' about my 'mistake', when this is a coin that I own, and all is explained in the book. What kind of reviewer are you? But I note that you do tacitly acknowledge, that all the Edessan monarchs all wore a Plaited Crown of Thorns, just as Jesus wore a Plaited Crown of Thorns...

Fourthly, Josephus at the crucifixion.

You have not read the book, have you?
I think you need to re-read Josephus 'Life'. Josephus Flavius WAS in Jerusalem when the Adiabene (Edessan) royalty surrendered to the Romans. And he was returning from Tekoa when he saw the three leaders of the Revolt (which must have included King Izas-Manu VI of Edessa) being crucified. Josephus petitioned the governor (Titus) to have the three leaders taken down, and he did so. Two of them died, while one survived.

I think you may recall this very same scene from the end of the gospel accounts. In which case, the person who took these three rebels down from the cross was actually Josephus Flavius (of Arimathaea).

Fifthly, the thesis.

This hypothesis is not some wild thought scribbled on the back of a fag packet. It is 35 years of research. And while it may be somewhat revolutionary, it actually explains everything in the New Testament. Each and every aspect, apart from the deliberate disinformation about Pontius Pilate, can be explained by this alternative view of these 1st century events in Judaea.

I ended up buying one of Ralph Ellis's books. Opening it the first think that popped into my head is that this is way over my head. You really need to understand the history of these regions. Which I do not, so I had to just assume everything said was true. I do not like that however so I look around the internet and found this. While I do not know if this guy or Ralph is right I do agree that Ralph needs to be peer reviewed and have other historians backing him.

Edit
I checked out the link about him being a fraud. I still have this issue where your claim is a big claim, and the internet doesn't seem to mention a lot supporting you but because of your claim there would not be any on the internet. Ralph I think you are in a bad spot where you have studied something and maybe you know the truth but when you are the first to discover it now the real battle starts where you have to convince people that your right. However people like myself who have no where near the knowledge you or other historians have are not the people who you would need to convince but instead as I said above you really need some more historians backing up and hopefully if you are right this can happen.

(10-03-2013 02:02 AM)Ironwall Wrote: I ended up buying one of Ralph Ellis's books. Opening it the first think that popped into my head is that this is way over my head. You really need to understand the history of these regions. Which I do not, so I had to just assume everything said was true. I do not like that however so I look around the internet and found this. While I do not know if this guy or Ralph is right I do agree that Ralph needs to be peer reviewed and have other historians backing him.

I would love to have a proper peer-review, but in my experience that chances of finding a reviewer without an agenda is remote. I have debated these topics many times, and the results are that either:

a. The guy is a believer, and does not want to find Jesus in the historical record, especislly if he turns out to be a warrior king. Thus he argues the historical facts, but knows nothing of the historical facts - and ends up frustrated and angry.

b. The guy is a non-believer and does not want to find Jesus in the historical record, as this would give legitimacy to the gospel stories. Thus he argues the biblical facts, but knows nothing of the biblical facts (having never read the Bible) - and ends up frustrated and angry.

The chances of either of these types giving a balanced review is next to non-existent.

>>Ralph I think you are in a bad spot where you have studied something and maybe you know the truth but
>>when you are the first to discover it now the real battle starts where you have to convince people that your right.

You are perfectly right there. But I am patient.

The Theists forget that the truth is difficult to refute - as too many things back it up. Each time they deflect an argument, the truth will knock it back towards reality. Now that what I firmly believe to be the truth is out in the open, in an open society were there is little religious censorship or religious oppression (apart from Mr Verenna), it will be very difficult to put everything back into Pandora's Box. In the Middle Ages they could have buried these arguments with torture and burnings - but no longer.

(10-03-2013 02:02 AM)Ironwall Wrote: I ended up buying one of Ralph Ellis's books. Opening it the first think that popped into my head is that this is way over my head. You really need to understand the history of these regions. Which I do not, so I had to just assume everything said was true. I do not like that however so I look around the internet and found this. While I do not know if this guy or Ralph is right I do agree that Ralph needs to be peer reviewed and have other historians backing him.

I would love to have a proper peer-review, but in my experience that chances of finding a reviewer without an agenda is remote. I have debated these topics many times, and the results are that either:

a. The guy is a believer, and does not want to find Jesus in the historical record, especislly if he turns out to be a warrior king. Thus he argues the historical facts, but knows nothing of the historical facts - and ends up frustrated and angry.

b. The guy is a non-believer and does not want to find Jesus in the historical record, as this would give legitimacy to the gospel stories. Thus he argues the biblical facts, but knows nothing of the biblical facts (having never read the Bible) - and ends up frustrated and angry.

The chances of either of these types giving a balanced review is next to non-existent.

>>Ralph I think you are in a bad spot where you have studied something and maybe you know the truth but
>>when you are the first to discover it now the real battle starts where you have to convince people that your right.

You are perfectly right there. But I am patient.

The Theists forget that the truth is difficult to refute - as too many things back it up. Each time they deflect an argument, the truth will knock it back towards reality. Now that what I firmly believe to be the truth is out in the open, in an open society were there is little religious censorship or religious oppression (apart from Mr Verenna), it will be very difficult to put everything back into Pandora's Box. In the Middle Ages they could have buried these arguments with torture and burnings - but no longer.

In fact, the only thing left in the box, for believers, is hope.

.

You are in a tough situation. The best of luck to you. I will hopefully be able to finish reading your book and I do hope you can find someone who can back up your claims. Your book I will say goes very in depth but once again being someone with no real knowledge of the area or its history I have to assume all is true which is not something I like to do.

(10-03-2013 01:23 AM)ralphellis Wrote: >>I think you're drawing a very long bow by claiming that this is a record of a flesh and blood
>>Jesus who was very human high priest in Jerusalem.

But this is not the only record. The Talmud says that Jesus of Gamala became high priest in AD 63, and for so many reasons, JoG was the biblical Jesus. (Although I have a hunch that this was more like AD 66 than AD 63).

In your list, JoG is called Jesus ben Gamaliel (son of Gamaliel). The Gamala was not a place name. In fact, it was derived from the Edessan title Kama (as in King Abgarus au Kama-Gamala). The title refers to Egypt, hence Jesus was also called the Egyptian False Prophet.

But this is interesting, because Gamaliel was the priest and sanhedrinite who defended the disciples from charges of heresy, and also the tutor of Saul-Josephus.

>>"JOSHUA (Jesus) BEN GAMALA

That's him. But Josephus calls him by the Greek 'Jesus' (Ieusos). It is said that he died in the siege of Jerusalem, but in the giuse of Izas (the 'other' leader of the Revolt), he was still alive when the siege ended.

Martha (Mary) ben Boethus is the same as Mary and Martha of Bethany, according to Prof Eisenman. Thus Mary Boethus was Mary Magdalene, and she was the wife of Jesus of Gamala. The Talmudic confusion between Mary and Martha is explained by the rule that the High Priest had to have two wives - so Jesus was married to both Mary and Martha.

.

Hi Ralph,

re "The Talmud says that Jesus of Gamala became high priest in AD 63,"

Ok....can you tell me where?

re "The Gamala was not a place name. In fact, it was derived from the Edessan title Kama (as in King Abgarus au Kama-Gamala)"

I'll take your word on that...unless...of course....you can prove it

re "But this is interesting, because Gamaliel was the priest and sanhedrinite who defended the disciples from charges of heresy,"

True....if one believes the book of Acts....which is a big ask.

re "and also the tutor of Saul-Josephus."

Well....once again, if you believe Acts is historical. Paul says nothing about Gamaliel in his letters. Also, Paul allegedly grew up in Tarsus. Was Gamaliel in Tarsus....NOPE.

re "That's him. But Josephus calls him by the Greek 'Jesus' (Ieusos). It
is said that he died in the siege of Jerusalem, but in the giuse of
Izas (the 'other' leader of the Revolt), he was still alive when the
siege ended. "

Can you elaborate please? Exactly who said he died in the siege of Jerusalem? Who said he was still alive when the siege ended?

She not only moved to Jerusalem, she became a Nazarite Jew and built the largest palace and tomb in Jerusalem. Her son, Izas-Jesus was also sent to Jerusalem, for his 7-year Nazarite training.

Jesus was certainly in Jerusalem when King Abgarus of Edessa was writing letters to him in the late AD 40s (see the Doctrine of Addai for this letter-writing episode). You will note in Eusebius' version of this story, that Eusebius has changed the Roman emperor to match the AD 30s date for Jesus. But if you look at the governors of Judaea and Syria that are mentioned, you will see that the date was actually the AD 40s and 50s.

.

.

"She not only moved to Jerusalem, she became a Nazarite Jew and built the
largest palace and tomb in Jerusalem. Her son, Izas-Jesus was also
sent to Jerusalem, for his 7-year Nazarite training."

Okay, I read that somewhere else too. The plot thickens.

"Doctrine of Addai
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Doctrine of Addai is a Syriac Christian document which recites the Legend of the Image of Edessa as well as the legendary works of Addai and his disciple Mari in Mesopotamia.
Contents [hide]
1 Content
2 See also
3 External links
4 References
[edit]Content

The story of how King Abgar and Jesus had corresponded was first recounted in the 4th century by the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History (i.13 and iii.1) and it was retold in elaborated form by Ephrem the Syrian.
In the origin of the legend, Eusebius had been shown documents purporting to contain the official correspondence that passed between Abgar and Jesus, and he was well enough convinced by their authenticity to quote them extensively in his ecclesiastical history. By the time the legend had returned to Syria, the purported site of the miraculous image, it had been embroidered into a tissue of miraculous happenings (Bauer 1971, ch. i): the Doctrine of Addai is full of miracles"

I've heard commentary about these notes. The commentary is always in the context of the fact that these notes were hand written by Eusebius i.e. they were forgeries. I'm sure I read somewhere that Eusebius even claimed to have a picture of Jesus' face on the cloth that was accompanying the letter. He claimed Jesus had wiped his face with the cloth! Eusebius is notorious as a dishonest historian. As far as I'm aware nobody takes any of these messages seriously.

Re..."You will note in Eusebius' version of this story, that Eusebius has
changed the Roman emperor to match the AD 30s date for Jesus. But if
you look at the governors of Judaea and Syria that are mentioned, you
will see that the date was actually the AD 40s and 50s."

Now that's interesting! Could you cut and paste the bit of Eusebius that mentions this? In fact, I'll try looking it up myself.

(10-03-2013 03:11 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: The story of how King Abgar and Jesus had corresponded was first recounted in the 4th century by the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History (i.13 and iii.1) and it was retold in elaborated form by Ephrem the Syrian.

I've heard commentary about these notes. The commentary is always in the context of the fact that these notes were hand written by Eusebius i.e. they were forgeries. I'm sure I read somewhere that Eusebius even claimed to have a picture of Jesus' face on the cloth that was accompanying the letter. He claimed Jesus had wiped his face with the cloth! Eusebius is notorious as a dishonest historian. As far as I'm aware nobody takes any of these messages seriously.

Re..."You will note in Eusebius' version of this story, that Eusebius has
changed the Roman emperor to match the AD 30s date for Jesus. But if
you look at the governors of Judaea and Syria that are mentioned, you
will see that the date was actually the AD 40s and 50s."

Now that's interesting! Could you cut and paste the bit of Eusebius that mentions this? In fact, I'll try looking it up myself.

I don't believe for one minute that Eusebius wrote the Doctrine of Addai. In fact, if I remember correctly, he says he found it in Edessa.

Besides, the clincher is the deliberate and deceitful changing of names, which I relate in full in my book. Eusebius's version says the Emperor of Rome was Tiberius, which he has to do to agree with the classical biblical chronology. But the Syrian governor is given as being Sabinus son of Eustorage. But this has to be Cassius Longinus, who was a student of Marinus of Storoge and the chief of the Sabinian School of Law. But Longinus was governor of Syria from AD 41 - 49. Eusebius does the same with the next governor (of Jerusalem), who is called Olbinus if I remember correctly, and he is an early AD 60s governor of Jerusalem.

Clearly, Eusebius has doctored the Doctrine of Addia to make it fit the classical biblical chronology, and if he has had to do so, then the Doctrine must have been a pre-existing 'gospel' that he has amended. And he had to amend it, because the Doctrine says that King Abgarus was writing letters to Jesus in Jerusalem in the late AD 40s. Ouch!!

Note that this is exactly the same time period as the character called Agabus arrives in the Acts of the Apostles. Same guy (king), same events. Note also that the money from King Abgarus of Edessa was taken to Jerusalem by Saul (Josephus) and Barnabas. Saul-Josephus would have been only 11 or 12 at the time, and undergoing his tuition in the sects of Judaism, as he claims. Remember that a Jew becomes a man at the age of 12 (normally 14 nowadays). This would mean that the famine relief money from Queen Helena and King Abgarus was sent to Judaea in AD 49 or so.